Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Smaller kernel, faster?

  1. #1
    SunDevil
    Guest

    Smaller kernel, faster?

    How useful is it to remove stuff you dont use from your kernel? i mean, stuff like 'pcmcia' and 'reiserfs' would the resulting kernel be fatser because it's smaller?

    Whats the deal with these modules? i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module? (see OMP: RedHat: A quick way to enable NTFS Support) Then what is the advantage of using modules?


  2. #2
    JimH
    Guest

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    Quote Originally Posted by SunDevil
    How useful is it to remove stuff you dont use from your kernel? i mean, stuff like 'pcmcia' and 'reiserfs' would the resulting kernel be fatser because it's smaller?
    Yes and no. If you remove the things that you don't need that are compiled into the kernel this can help. Especially if the driver probes your hardware everytime you boot. Removing these can speed up boot time. Any modules you don't need just reduce the size of your install.

    Whats the deal with these modules? i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module? Then what is the advantage of using modules?
    Smaller kernel size. Smaller memory footprint for the kernel. With the drivers as modules, you are using only the memory you need.

    Most modules are compiled by default. It is really up to the Linux ditribution to determine what modules to enable by default. ie. most likely to be used, not too unstable, etc...

    In reference to the NTFS module, Red Hat chooses not to enable it in the kernels they ship. Prior to very recent kernel versions the NTFS module was very unstable. The module would corrupt kernel memory and indirectly this would lead to filesystem corruption. Oops. The NTFS module is now stable, however Red Hat still isn't enabling it because of concerns abotu possible patent/legal issues with the module and M$.

    Jim H

  3. #3

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    Can we write to NTFS safely yet?
    if we can i might finally have a go at NTFS support.
    Its better to regret something you have done than to regret something you havent done :P

  4. #4

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    nope, still very unsafe to write to NTFS, it will be a big thing when the NTFS write utility is workin nice and safe, but keep away from it for now if you like windows the way it is ;D ;D

    -Babbing

  5. #5
    Aaron_Adams
    Guest

    Re:Smaller kernel, faster?

    i can choose to load or unload a module but i have to compile my kernel first to make sure it can support that module?
    It's not necessary to recompile a kernel to support a module, in all cases. Typically, it's possible to compile a module for the specific kernel you're running. There is usually documentation that comes with module source which shows the compiler option to use.

Similar Threads

  1. How to split a tar file into smaller files
    By peter in forum Linux - Software, Applications & Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-01-2006, 02:24 AM
  2. 1.6 GhZ with 256 faster or 833 MhZ with 512 faster?
    By shebang in forum Linux - Hardware, Networking & Security
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 10-22-2004, 06:32 AM
  3. 18 Times Faster Than Light
    By Ashcrow in forum General Chat
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-12-2003, 07:17 PM
  4. Making KDE faster.....?
    By rick420 in forum Linux - Software, Applications & Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-03-2002, 09:00 PM
  5. Linux test version gets faster USB
    By cloverm in forum General Chat
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-16-2002, 02:43 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •